IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/quante/v9y2018i2p1053-1085.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Do basketball scoring patterns reflect illegal point shaving or optimal in‐game adjustments?

Author

Listed:
  • Jesse Gregory

Abstract

This paper develops and estimates a model of college basketball teams' search for scoring opportunities, to provide a benchmark of the winning margin distributions that should arise if teams' only goal is to win. I estimate the model's structural parameters using first‐half play‐by‐play data from college games and simulate the estimated model's predicted winning margin distributions. Teams' optimal state‐dependent strategies generate patterns that match those previously cited as evidence of point shaving. The results suggest that corruption in NCAA basketball is less prevalent than previously suggested and that indirect forensic economics methodology can be sensitive to seemingly innocuous institutional features.

Suggested Citation

  • Jesse Gregory, 2018. "Do basketball scoring patterns reflect illegal point shaving or optimal in‐game adjustments?," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 9(2), pages 1053-1085, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:quante:v:9:y:2018:i:2:p:1053-1085
    DOI: 10.3982/QE519
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3982/QE519
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.3982/QE519?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Berkowitz, Jason P. & Depken II, Craig A. & Gandar, John M., 2018. "Market evidence against widespread point shaving in college basketball," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 283-292.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:quante:v:9:y:2018:i:2:p:1053-1085. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/essssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.